add_to_negative_keyword_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations show non-read-only and non-destructive. Description clarifies it returns a preview plan and requires a confirmation step, making the two-phase behavior transparent. However, it doesn't mention if the preview can be discarded or if there are limits on the number of keywords.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a single opening sentence defining purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it outlines the necessary preliminary steps, parameter semantics, and the need for confirm_and_apply. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains shared_set_id (numeric ID from get_negative_keyword_lists), keywords (list, duplicates collapsed), and match_type (EXACT/PHRASE/BROAD). Missing explanation for customer_id, but it has a default value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool appends keywords to an existing shared negative keyword list and returns a preview. It distinguishes itself from propose_negative_keyword_list by emphasizing 'EXISTING' and specifying it as an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit conditions: use when a suitable list exists, not for creating new ones. Instructs to call get_negative_keyword_lists and get_negative_keyword_list_keywords first to avoid duplication, and indicates that confirm_and_apply is needed to execute.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.